HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL JUSTI CE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI AND JUSTI CE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY Special Appeal No.393 of 2021 July 14, 2025 Avneesh Bhatnagar & Others …Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others …Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Rahul Verma, Addl. A.G. for the State.

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no.5 through V.C.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

1. This is Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2021 filed by the appellants for condoning the delay of

742 days in filing this appeal.

2. Delay Condonation Application, being unopposed, is allowed. Delay is, accordingly, condoned.

3. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment/final order dated 09.03.2018 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1782 of

2012. Impugned judgment is reproduced below:-

“Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, present for the petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent no.5.

The petitioners participated in the selection process. They were offered appointment to the post of Junior Engineer in the year 2004.

Present petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the benefits of 10 additional marks to the petitioners in terms of the rules of 2003 and further to direct the respondents to redraw the merit list and after completion of this exercise, the promotional exercise be carried out.

The petitioners have slept over their rights w.e.f. 2004 to 2013. It is settled law by now by their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court that promotion and seniority list must be challenged within a period of six months to one year. Their Lordships have further held that the vested rights acquired by a person in the intervening period cannot be disturbed at a belated stage.

The petitioners have not even added any person likely to be affected. There is no limitation as far as writ jurisdiction is concerned but the delay and laches cannot be overlooked by the Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”

4. Appellant participated in a selection for appointment as Junior Engineer, pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2001. Upon selection, he was appointed as Junior Engineer in 2004. Based on his score of marks in the selection, appellant was assigned a particular seniority position amongst Junior Engineers appointed in 2004. The next promotional post available to the petitioner is Assistant Engineer and exercise for promotion as Assistant Engineer was initiated in 2011, however, appellant was not considered for promotion as he was down below in seniority list.

5. He then filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.1782 of 2012 with the contention that the Recruitment Rules applicable for the post of Junior Engineer were amended in 2003; the amended Rules provided for 10 additional marks to persons who had served as Apprentice; appellant had served as Apprentice for the required length of service, therefore, he was entitled for 10 additional marks which were not given to him; he, thus, prayed that he be given 10 additional marks which will improve his seniority ranking in the cadre of Junior Engineers.

6. The relief sought by the appellant in the said writ petition is extracted below:-

“Issue a writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the benefits of 10 additional marks to the petitioners in terms of the rules of 2003 and further to direct the respondents to redraw the merit list and after completion of this exercise, the promotional exercise be carried out.”

7. The writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by holding that seniority dispute must be raised wit